Koyoto is here

[Kitsune]

My God and yours, Wikipedia, has a pretty good article, including a nice summary of why some countries are for and against.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by jaguar

......The bit that people are missing is feedback, we're getting very, very close to the level where it kicks in, once you hit that point, we're essentially fucked. .....

That's when the frozen methane kicks in and it's all over but the shouting.

[jaguar]

No, but don't buy a house on the coast.

[lookout123]

that is why i'm in arizona. i've got prime beachfront property when: A) earthquakes cause california to sink into the sea, or B) global warming causes water levels to rise high enough to put CA under water.

i'm sitting on a gold mine here in arizona. C'mon global warming!!!

[jaguar]

you can't sink CA, shit floats.

[Undertoad]

We should follow France's lead and turn to nuclear energy. Nukes plus hybrid cars in 2020!

Actually I do think so, even though I'm a Three Mile Island "survivor". There have been safer designs of nuke plants that have been developed since the bad old days.

(Remember, it's pronounced "nuke-u-lar")

[russotto]

Which of course is why Jag and the Europeans like it. And why even the Clinton Administration wouldn't push it.

There's only two real ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. One is a massive increase in the use of nuclear energy, and you _know_ that ain't going to fly politically. The other is the mother of all austerity plans; the only way to reduce CO2 significantly is to burn a lot fewer hydrocarbons. That means lots less energy use. At first the US could simply accelerate the transfer of energy-intensive processes to countries not as constrained by the treaty. But when that runs out, it's bye-bye cars, bye-bye air conditioning and heating, bye-bye refrigeration, etc. And since people won't give these things up voluntarily, the government will have to slide even faster towards totalitarianism.

And all for a theory about a chaotic system for which we have only the fuzziest ideas of the initial conditions and processes involved. New _massive_ carbon sources and sinks are regularly discovered, and yet some scientists feel confident predicting disaster.

I can't promise the predicted disaster won't happen. What I _can_ promise is that the result of the US joining and observing Kyoto will be at least as bad. We'd do better to have New Jersey slip into the sea.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We should follow France's lead and turn to nuclear energy. Nukes plus hybrid cars in 2020!

Actually I do think so, even though I'm a Three Mile Island "survivor". There have been safer designs of nuke plants that have been developed since the bad old days.

Let's not forget why events happen such as Three Mile Island and The Challenger. In each case, management was so technically naive as to conform to the definition of anti-American. Hell, at Three Mile Island, they only had two phone lines; had the same problems making phone calls like everyone else. The anti-American GPU Corporation could not even ask Bell of PA for more phone lines or special service.

But better management alone is not going to make nuclear a superior alternative. There remain a few major problems for which there are no reasonable answers. One major problem is waste disposal. IOW a solution does not exist. Current plants must now maintain large on-site storage of and expand facilities for more nuclear fuel waste. This even includes nuclear plants that have been shutdown. Second is that if nuclear were to be used exclusively for energy, then we have a severe shortage of nuclear fuels. Yes there is even a limited supply of raw nuclear fuel - just as their is a limit to the amount of oil and other fuels.

The problems with all this is politics - especially those opposed to Kyoto using Rush Limbaugh half truths. Politics is how we promote ostrich thinking.

First a solution is found in major technology advances. No way around that fact. Not in more wars or more energy production - the nonsense lies promoted by ostriches. We need only review previous adversity in The Cellar to quantum physics to therefore appreciate a neanderthal response to what we should be doing.

For example, there is no reason for every vehicle of current size to be getting less than 30 MPG. Many vehicles are still using 1968 technologies. And so the naive (including the president) instead hypes lies such as a Hydrogen fuel solution. Yes H2 fuel was a gross and obvious lie. They understand the neanderthals would never see through that lie. The politics is not about solutions. And that is the problem. Technical naivety gives political reasoning (ie Rush Limbaugh) more credence than science fact.

Solutions do exist IF we choose to seek them. Any nation that does develop new technologies compatible with the Kyoto protocols will create the new jobs, new industries, greater wealth, geo-political power, etc. That is even the lessons of history. Innovators get rich. Ostriches complain about how liberals made everything go wrong. We only need look at the sad state of GM or AT&T to see what will happen. GM got all the government protection they wanted - and therefore is classically anti-innovative. This is what happens when neanderthals oppose things that inspire and require innovation. The Kyoto protocols are about innovation.

Yes, nuclear could be an partial solution. But even nuclear has severe problems that we are ignoring. A real solution repeatedly involves a concept of doing more with less. The hybrid, which was possible even twenty years ago, is an example of what happens when industry takes the "we can't do it so we should never try" attitude. IOW thank god for pro-American companies such as Toyota and Honda who did not need the Kyoto protocols to do what historically makes America great: innovate - push out the envelope - admit to and address real world problems.

Those who say it cannot be solved and therefore we should not even try? We called them luddites. Conservative attitudes are where most luddites are found - because their solutions include fear, myopia, and the anti-American attitude of promoting the status quo.

The Kyoto Protocols are not really the issue. We are right back to the same reason why some foolishly advocate a useless ISS rather than the super collider. Why some foolishy let their emotions promote a 'Man on Mars' nonsense rather than promote the advancement of space science.

UT does properly note that nuclear can be a partial solution. There have been some interesting advancements to nuclear power. A country that does not fear to innovate should investigate or be willing to experiment with such ideas. However this will never happen when the George Jr administration takes a $450,000 campaign contribution so that First Energy can continue to operate a nuclear reactor with both an unresolved Three Mile Island type problem and a hole in the reactor vessel. The resulting book would have been entitled, "We almost lost Toledo".

[Kitsune]

One is a massive increase in the use of nuclear energy, and you _know_ that ain't going to fly politically.

I really wish the world wouldn't fear nuclear power so much that we even have to rename things that don't even involve particle radiation (anyone remember when MRIs were called NMRs?). I really think, if handled properly, that nuclear power could fix a lot of our issues.

Reading about Kyoto leads me to question one thing: why is the US, and not China, the leading producer of emissions? I would have thought we would have been surpassed by China years ago with the amount of physical product they output compared to the US.

[Happy Monkey]

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

[lookout123]

oooor, maybe it's because we're the US of A and we want to be number 1 in every way possible.

[Kitsune]

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

My understanding is that it was based on manufacturing output and didn't consider vehicle pollution. This is why I find it all a little confusing, not to mention that the numbers would be very easy to fudge.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

But they are working hard to get them.

I agree that nuclear power plants would be an effective alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. Alas, the public is unduely terrified of them.

I never cared much for New Jersey, but I imagine the people who live there would be rather miffed if it went under the waves.

[jaguar]

Which of course is why Jag and the Europeans like it.

Er.....

Originally Posted by jaguar
While I agree koyoto is pointless

I understand kneejerk is easier than say, thinking but at least read the fucking posts before trying to attack me.

New _massive_ carbon sources and sinks are regularly discovered,

evidence?

While it's equally easy to set up a straw man (Koyoto would lead to a fascist government is at least unique in it's idiocy) it doesn't make it any more correct. Massively reducing hydrocarbon output would require a massive investment in replacement infrastructure and re-tooling existing infrastructure but it is doable, if not politically viable.

[jaguar]

Nothing more needs to be said really